War Crime or not?

[GePap]

Over and over we have heard the admin. ask Iraqi units not to follow orders to blow up infrastructure, most specifically oil fields.

Now, some things are obvious war crimes, such as the wanton killing of civilians. One can state that destroying vital civilian infrastructure is a war crime, since it leads to humanitarian crisis, and possible deaths.

But is blowing up an isolated oil field a war crime? What, if any, legal authority would the US have to persecute Iraqi soldiers and officers who participated in the torching of oil fields as the admin. keeps stating?

[SlowwHand]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1420133.stm

[Worthingtons]

I would say it is , not for the economic consequences (remember what Stalin did to his own country!) but for the environmental consequences , this will not only wreck many people's life's in the region but will kill all sorts of sea/air life

[reismark]

What the coward is doing is most assuredly a war crime.

[GePap]

Of all the reasons given there for warcrimes, the only thing that comes even close to making blowing up oil fields one is to call it wanton destruction without military aims. That is very diffculy though since blowing up the oil fields here may have military significance in slowing the enemies advance and denying them the control of the resource (scorched earth).

So the question remains: if Iraqi forces blow up the oil fields, have they commited a war crime?

[SlowwHand]

Have you checked the link for legal definition, or do you just want people's opinion about what they individually think should be a war crime, which doesn't really matter?

[Garth Vader]

A war crime is whatever the victor decides.

That might not be fair or right, but it's the way it is.

[Sava]

Since the US is the boss, anything they say is a war-crime. IMO, there were far more war crimes in South-East Asia against the civilian population by US forces than there were in Kosovo or Bosnia. Yet, Milosevic is in The Hague at a joke of a trial while Kissinger still gets work thrown at him from the Republican party.

When you're a leader of a smaller nation, it's a war-crime. When you're a leader of a superpower, it's called collateral damage. Go figure!

[GePap]

That was true in 1946..not anymore, since it has been codified into international norm.

Sloww: I did shearch the link, and thus the part of my post that read:

Of all the reasons given there for warcrimes, the only thing that comes even close to making blowing up oil fields one is to call it wanton destruction without military aims. That is very diffculy though since blowing up the oil fields here may have military significance in slowing the enemies advance and denying them the control of the resource (scorched earth).

Oh, and of course what i want is opinions: they might not matter, but they make for better argument.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
Of all the reasons given there for warcrimes, the only thing that comes even close to making blowing up oil fields one is to call it wanton destruction without military aims. That is very diffculy though since blowing up the oil fields here may have military significance in slowing the enemies advance and denying them the control of the resource (scorched earth).

So the question remains: if Iraqi forces blow up the oil fields, have they commited a war crime?

Yes, the wanton destruction of private or public property without a compelling military reason is a violation of the laws and customs of war.

In the case of the USSR, and Russia in Napoleon's time, the scorched earth policy did not fall under this definition, as the goal was to deny materiel and potentially useful assets to an invading enemy military force. The French or Germans doing the same thing on retreat is a different story, except in specific cases - demolishing bridges or railways, etc. makes sense from a military standpoint.

Blowing up the oilfields has only the most indirect military aims (respiratory problems, visibility), which are minor in military significance in view of the overall health, environmental and economic impact on combatants and especially noncombatants.

[rah]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Have you checked the link for legal definition, or do you just want people's opinion about what they individually think should be a war crime, which doesn't really matter?

Despite the definitions layed out in the link you provided, there is considerable room for interpretation. Which the winner usually does.

On oil fields.
listed in your link, only one area seems to cover it.

Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity

Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings

Plunder of public or private property.


Last night someone said that torching an oil field could provide some strategic advantage by lowering visability for advancing aggressors. Sure sounds like a valid military action to me.

RAH
and of course MTG beat me to it by two minutes. Must learn to type faster

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
That was true in 1946..not anymore, since it has been codified into international norm.

Ideally, everybody follows these.

In reality, though, being a superpower grants immunity to international law.

[SlowwHand]

"But is blowing up an isolated oil field a war crime? What, if any, legal authority would the US have to persecute Iraqi soldiers and officers who participated in the torching of oil fields as the admin. keeps stating?"




The USA and Britain smoked Iraq to a degree last night.
Iraq can burn their oil fields.
Burning Kuwait's oil wells, is a war crime.
Scudding Israel, is a war crime.

Retaliation against a "neutral" country, is a war crime.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by rah


Despite the definitions layed out in the link you provided, there is considerable room for interpretation. Which the winner usually does.

Of course, since only the winner gets to hold the trials.

Last night someone said that torching an oil field could provide some strategic advantage by lowering visability for advancing aggressors. Sure sounds like a valid military action to me.

It will only significantly* lower visibility in the vicinity of the oilfields themselves, which are not really close enough to any military targets. A far larger effect was demonstrated last time, in terms of respiratory distress and significant skin irritation from precipitated oil droplets many miles downwind.

*significantly meaning from the tactical perspective of a military unit. Five to ten miles away or less, the tactical visibility on the ground is going to be pretty much the same, as wind and dust will be the constraining factors. For aircraft, the visibility hazard is larger, but they just change altitude and/or route to the target, so there's still no tactical significance.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Scudding Israel, is a war crime.

Retaliation against a "neutral" country, is a war crime.

Why?